I think (though it is not a popular notion) that by far the greater part of the cry for Parliamentary reform is due to this inequality.  The great capitalists, Mr. Bright and his friends, believe they are sincere in asking for more power for the working man, but, in fact, they very naturally and very properly want more power for themselves.  They cannot endure—­they ought not to endure—­that a rich, able manufacturer should be a less man than a small stupid squire.  The notions of political equality which Mr. Bright puts forward are as old as political speculation, and have been refuted by the first efforts of that speculation.  But for all that they are likely to last as long as political society, because they are based upon indelible principles in human nature.  Edmund Burke called the first East Indians, “Jacobins to a man,” because they did not feel their “present importance equal to their real wealth”.  So long as there is an uneasy class, a class which has not its just power, it will rashly clutch and blindly believe the notion that all men should have the same power.

I do not consider the exclusion of the working classes from effectual representation a defect in this aspect of our Parliamentary representation.  The working classes contribute almost nothing to our corporate public opinion, and therefore, the fact of their want of influence in Parliament does not impair the coincidence of Parliament with public opinion.  They are left out in the representation, and also in the thing represented.

Nor do I think the number of persons of aristocratic descent in Parliament impairs the accordance of Parliament with public opinion.  No doubt the direct descendants and collateral relatives of noble families supply members to Parliament in far greater proportion than is warranted by the number of such families in comparison with the whole nation.  But I do not believe that these families have the least corporate character, or any common opinions, different from others of the landed gentry.  They have the opinions of the propertied rank in which they were born.  The English aristocracy have never been a caste apart, and are not a caste apart now.  They would keep up nothing that other landed gentlemen would not.  And if any landed gentlemen are to be sent to the House of Commons, it is desirable that many should be men of some rank.  As long as we keep up a double set of institutions—­one dignified and intended to impress the many, the other efficient and intended to govern the many—­we should take care that the two match nicely, and hide where the one begins and where the other ends.  This is in part effected by conceding some subordinate power to the august part of our polity, but it is equally aided by keeping an aristocratic element in the useful part of our polity.  In truth, the deferential instinct secures both.  Aristocracy is a power in the “constituencies”.  A man who is an honourable or a baronet, or better yet, perhaps, a real earl, though Irish, is coveted by half the electing bodies; and caeteris paribus, a manufacturer’s son has no chance with him.  The reality of the deferential feeling in the community is tested by the actual election of the class deferred to, where there is a large free choice betwixt it and others.